Peddling ‘democracy’ and other myths:
A response in defense of the Office of the Student Regent
by ANAKBAYAN
No word perhaps is as misused, abused, and twisted to fit the interests of a selfish few than the term democratic. The past few days we have been assaulted by a flurry of statements from certain student councils and political formations calling for the democratization of the Student Regent selection by subjecting their personal proposed amendments to the impending referendum to approve the selection rules. These groups have gone to the extent of expressly endorsing the failure of the referendum by enjoining the students to register a negative vote. At a juncture when the potency of our student institutions and, in essence, the power of our collective action, is undermined, there is no other recourse than to expose and resist such semantic deception and divisive intervention.
The referendum is not the proper venue for amendments to be adopted. The Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS) in its current form provides ample mechanisms for student councils to propose amendments to the same. As the CRSRS is still in effect, student councils have yearly been given until the first day of October to forward their proposed revisions, which these councils failed to do. This, however, is not merely a matter of technicality. The wisdom behind such prescription lies in the need for the approval by student councils across the UP system through the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) of any and all proposed amendments to the rules.
To obstinately insist on subjecting such amendments to the referendum is an act of arrogance and is in itself antithetical to the concept of democracy that these same groups relentlessly invoke. These student councils are practically asking that the assembly be bypassed, and that the position of the other councils on their amendments be effectively muted. It is worthy to note that these same revisions are the ones that have been, time and again, rejected by an overwhelming majority of student councils across UP through the GASC. Again, to ignore this historic position of the majority on such proposals runs counter to the idea of democracy that the groups in question so glorify.
A few words on the proposed amendments, nevertheless, are imperative. Apart from the fact that former Student Regents have been selected without a minimum academic requirement, as now proposed by some student councils and organizations, but have exceptionally discharged their duties, the inclusion of such condition conflicts with our collective position that the Student Regent selection is and must purely be a student affair and poses unjustly discriminatory effects.
These councils yet again posit that the selection process can be democratized through “proportionately” allowing one vote for each council. While a ‘one council-one vote’ scheme would sound appealing especially in the usual yet elementary and restrictive appreciation of ‘democracy’, the bigger problem lies in the fact that the current allocation of votes (2 for autonomous units, 1 for regional units) is precisely so in a conscious effort to preclude monopoly of the position by the unit with the most number of colleges. Certainly, this is not the brand of ‘democracy’ we would like to partake in.
The deletion of the role of the Kalipunan ng mga Sangguniang Mag-aaral sa UP (KASAMA sa UP) in the CRSRS has further been the subject of their proposed amendments. The CRSRS is clear as to the function of KASAMA sa UP by virtue of its historical role in the re-establishment of the Office and thus mandates the alliance to provide the necessary historical perspective on the institution and the selection process. The GASC remains the highest decisive body as regards the selection process. To remove the alliance’s significance as enshrined in the CRSRS is to betray the Office’s very history and ignore the historic collective struggle of the alliance’s member-councils to defend the Office from unceasing attempts to strip it of its liberative power of representation.
There is no misinformation to the claim that a failed referendum may result in the vacancy of the Office, and that such may pave the way for intervention by the administration. The fear that stems from an unsuccessful referendum is that such may leave the Office vacant until the CRSRS is approved, and consequently, the students will have no representation in the Board of Regents, UP’s highest policy-making body. While pertinent laws state that the incumbent remains in position should no successor to a public office be appointed or selected, such opinion, however, fails to note that the current Student Regent is set to graduate and would thus no longer be qualified to hold office.
More importantly, a vote in the negative is a tacit invitation for administration intervention. UP President Emerlinda Roman has confirmed the possibility that the administration may recommend any student for the position only if the students would approve of such. Knowing the administration’s conception of ’student approval’, as shown in the manner by which the 300% tuition hike, for example, was treacherously approved and justified, a failed referendum presents us only with unfortunate scenarios.
Ultimately, a vote in favor of the selection rules is a vote for the Office of the Student Regent and for genuinely democratic student representation. The fact remains that the mandatory conduct of a referendum undermines the capacity of the GASC to administer its own affairs and refuses to recognize the autonomy of the assembly itself in formulating its own rules on the conduct of the selection process that have always been upheld by the majority through its own democratic devices. It must be remembered that the provision in the new UP Charter mandating the conduct of the referendum was insidiously inserted, without any democratic consultation as its basis, by a former UP Diliman Student Council chairperson affiliated with a particular group which now asks us to ‘check the OSR’.
It is in this repressive nature of the referendum that we are now calling on the students to unite in voting ‘yes’ to precisely prove to the administration and to these reactionary student groups that no deception and intervention shall deter us. The pursuit of true democracy, after all, can never be claimed by a selfish few who advance their vested interests and hunger for power in the guise of spurious claims of promoting ‘democratization’ and ‘student participation.’ Most importantly, democracy lies in a conscious and concerted effort to defend our democratic institutions especially when false and opportunist student leaders not only miserably fail to do so, but even connive towards such repression.
Vote YES! January 26-31, 2009 Student Regent Referendum. Bring your student I.D. or Form 5 and vote in your respective college precincts, all over the UP System.
Tagged: CRSRS, Referendum, UP Student Regent, Vote YES January 25, 2009
Hi everyone! Kamusta na kayo?
Nais kong magpaumanhin sa generic na sulat na ito. Sumusulat ako sa inyo bilang colleague, guro o dating guro ninyo, kaibigan, kakilala, o bilang isang concerned na miyembro ng U.P. Nais kong ipabatid sa inyo ang dalawang bagay:
Una, Maligayang Pasko! Yung pinaka-sincere. Saka Manigong Bagong Taon! Yung pinaka-sincere rin 
Ikalawa, kilala n’yo ba si Ma’am Sarah Raymundo ng Sociology Dept, UP Diliman? Nagtataka kasi ako, pati yung iba kong co-teachers, at iba pang students at members ng UP community, kung bakit hindi siya binigyan ng tenure or permanent status ng kaniyang department.
Sa mga di nakakikilala kay Ma’am Sarah, halos sampung taon na siyang nagtuturo sa U.P. Natatandaan ko nga nung first year ako sa U.P. noong 1999, naririnig ko na ang pangalan niya bilang isa sa pinakabata pero isa sa matalino, masipag, masigasig at matinong titser sa U.P. Nababasa ko rin yung mga articles na kinocontribute niya sa Kule. Needless to say, very bright talaga siya. Dati pa man hinahangaan ko na siya.
Nung magsimula akong magturo sa U.P. Diliman four years ago, isa si Sarah sa laging nag-uupdate sa akin about theories, research endeavors, mga pressing local and national concerns, at iba pa (pati kung anong usong damit at kung anong magandang pelikulang panoorin, o music na pakinggan). Dami kong natutunan sa kaniya! Pati kung paano ang tamang attitude sa pagtuturo, paano maghahandle ng students, mga teaching techniques, at ang value ng teaching, however cliche ang tunog.
Ngayon, lagi akong naglu-look forward kung may bagong article si Sarah sa kaniyang blog o kaya sa mga publications. Yun ngang article niya about isang beauty contest na segment sa dating show ni Willie Revillame, yung may mga contestant na kailangang highlighted ang pagiging “hyphenated” ng pagka-Pinoy (halimbawa, Filipino-American, Filipino-Swedish, atbp), talagang na-amaze ako kung paano niya napipinpoint ang mga hegemonic discourse etc. Nakakatulong ng malaki ang mga nababasa kong articles niya sa pagtalakay ko sa klase ng PP 17 (Pop Culture), PI 100, PP 19 (Sexualidad), Fil 128 (Wika at Diskurso), at iba pang subjects na itinuturo ko. Sabi nga ng isang colleague namin ni Sarah, “blog entries pa nga lang niya ay articles na.”
She really has it. Theory and praxis!
Kaya nakaka-surprise talaga kung bakit di siya binigyan ng tenure ng kaniyang sariling department, when she deserves it talaga. Dahil ba sa pagiging open minded at pagiging aktibista ni Sarah kaya siya hindi binigyan ng tenure? E kasi na-meet na niya ang lahat ng requirements para ma-tenure pero di siya binigyan. Hay.
Sana suportahan natin ang call or panawagan ng mga members ng UP Community para bigyan ng tenure si Sarah. Nasa ibaba yung nakuha ko mula sa weblog niya. Sign tayo ng online petition at basahin nating maigi at ipakalat sa iba pang tao, kahit non-UP puwede ring mag-sign.
Please find time, laluna ngayong Pasko at Bagong Taon, para suportahan si Sarah Raymundo.
Maraming salamat!
Mykel Andrada
* * * *
From Prof. Sarah Raymundo’s campaign blog – http://tenureforsarahraymundo.blogspot.com
SARAH RAYMUNDOis an Assistant Professor from the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman’s Department of Sociology, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy. She’s been teaching in UP for almost ten years. She has met, and even exceeded, the minimum requirements for tenure. Why then, after almost a year since she applied for tenure, is Prof. Raymundo being denied permanent status in the university?
Given her outstanding academic and extension work, we are led to believe that her department’s decision is a reaction to her engagements as the General Secretary of the Congress of Teachers / Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND-UP), as an active member of the All UP Academic Employees Union (AUPAEU) and National Treasurer of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT), and as a researcher for the militant human rights organization KARAPATAN.
We are also called to challenge the lack of transparency in the tenure process.
Please sign the online petition calling for the granting of tenure to Prof. Sarah Raymundo according to your sector:
UP FACULTY — http://petitiononline.com/sarahray
UP STUDENTS and ALUMNI — http://petitiononline.com/mamsarah
UP REPS & ADMIN STAFF, & Individuals, including International Community — http://petitiononline.com/tenuresr
FACULTY from Other Universities, Schools, Colleges (Non-UP) — http://petitiononline.com/sarahint
Please pass and cross post. Maraming salamat!
We also encourage everyone to write their letters of support for Prof. Sarah Raymundo’s tenure. Please send and/or email your letters to the following:
Dr. Clemen Aquino
Chair, Department of Sociology,
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines
Diliman, 1101 Quezon City
Email: sociology@up.edu.ph
Dean Zosimo Lee
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy,
Email: dekano@kssp.upd.edu.ph
Chancellor Sergio Cao
University of the Philippines
Diliman, 1101 Quezon City
Email: oc.upd@up.edu.ph
Please copy furnish (cc) all letters to: tenureforsarahraymundo@gmail.com
December 23, 2008
According to the official website of the Global Forum on Migration and
Development (GFMD), demographics suggest that “migration of low-skilled workers is the most likely to reduce poverty” in underdeveloped and/or less-developed countries. The GFMD website further pontificates that the said migration “can also have beneficial social and economic effects” in host countries where these wage-seekers will be employed. This statement by GFMD, one of the biggest conglomeration of labor-accepting capitalist countries and labor-sending neocolonies, is a classic economic “false truism” — one which has been going on for years now since the ascension of imperialist plunderers. This is the ill logic of global capital.
The fact is millions of cheap and docile labor are exported yearly from poor
countries. In the Philippines alone, according to www.census.gov.ph, there were
around two million overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) in 2007. However, according to Migrante International, there are around 10 million OFWs, documented and undocumented by the government. These un-, low- and semi-skilled workers contribute “directly in the production, manufacturing, and services industries” of big capitalist countries. As if to further denigrate migrant workers, the GFMD proponents pride themselves by saying that “low-skilled migrant workers take on the dirty, dangerous, and difficult jobs that nationals of the host country would normally shy away from, thus allowing the latter to take on more skilled and higher-paying jobs.” This shameless erudition of economic and racial hostility is cloaked by labor-sending
neo-colonies such as the Philippines by hailing OFWs as the country’s modern-day heroes (”mga bagong bayani”).
Indeed, OFWs are the “government’s modern-day heroes.” The Arroyo
government harnesses around 62 million pesos monthly from the dollar remittances of OFWs, while monopolistic financial institutions such as large-scale banks pocket as much as one billion dollars. This year, economists and labor groups forecast that the OFWs’ dollar remittances will reach around 17 billion dollars. As of mid 2008, dollar remittance has already reached 9.6 billion dollars. Even Director Iluminada Sicat of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ Department of Economic Statistics said that this figure is equivalent to ten percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and is four times as much as foreign direct investments. It is therefore not surprising why the Arroyo government, as well as other labor-exporting countries, promote a
culture of forced migration.
This large-scale forced migration is a product of a long and winding stretch of
oppression by monopoly capitalism and its local reactionary states. According to the GFMD, the “positive impact” of migration for migrants and their families are “economic and social empowerment through greater purchasing power.” It raises the “positive impact” to the national level by saying that “migration can bring much needed foreign exchange reserves and improve the country’s income through direct consumption and investment spending.” Literally, the GFMD posits the perverse universality of neo-liberal globalization – the act of consumption/purchasing is the logic of global capital. The GFMD is nothing but a permutation of the drive for imperialist profit masked as familial and government end.
However, the real conditions of neo-liberal globalization are experienced
everyday by migrant workers and their families. Filipinos are forced to leave this
country and their loved ones because of unemployment and poverty. Filipinos are driven away from their natural habitat by foreign corporations and local feudal lords and bourgeois compradors.
If, at all, this forced migration has a “positive impact,” it would be the
exposition of greed for global profit by monopoly capitalists the world over. And consequently, the alignment of forces and the strengthening of the masses of diasporics, here and abroad, against imperialism and its cohorts.
November 4, 2008
Timely ang publicity stint ng ABS-CBN para sa pinakamayayamang burgesya kumprador (BurKom) at panginoong maylupa (PML) sa Oktubre 12, 2008 na “dokumentaryong” WALANG IWANAN. Timely dahil ang proyektong ito ay tungkol sa pag-asenso at pagkakaroon ng monopolyo ng pinakamayayaman ng isang porsiyento ng nasa tuktok ng kapangyarihan at kayamanan sa Pilipinas. Gokongwei. Henry Sy. Lucio Tan. Reyes. Pangilinan. Zobel. Ayala. At iba pa. Lopez. Ang pinakamalalaking gahaman ng bansa ang mga bida sa “reality television” na ito. Mayorya ng mga kuwento ay naratibo ng pag-ahon mula sa kahirapan at pagkatanghal bilang pinakamakakapangyarihang pamilya sa bansa. At dahil naranasan ng mga kapitalistang ito kung paano ang maghirap, diumano’y di lamang nakasentro ang kanilang pamamayagpag sa larangan ng ekonomiya sa kasalukuyan, kundi nakatuon rin ang kanilang mga palad sa kawanggawa — sa pamamagitan ng tinatawag na Corporate Social Responsibility.
Itong corporate social responsibility o CSR ang higit pang nagpapayaman sa mga may monopolyo. Tax exemption o tax discount ang kongkretong reward na ito. Bagama’t totoong mayroong nabibiyayaan ang CSR, mas marami pa rin ang hindi. Sa katunayan, ang mga nabibiyayaan ay nagiging bahagi rin ng kultural na kapital ng mga korporasyon, at likewise, ay nagiging bahagi rin ng sentral na produktong ibinebenta ng mga korporasyon.
Sa aking mga klase sa U.P., lagi kong pinapatingkad ang usapin hinggil sa tunggalian ng mga uri. Conflict, sa historico-materialist na perspective, ang nagpapagalaw ng mundo, ang lumilikha ng kasaysayan. Ang pananaig ng isang panig laban sa iba pang panig ang magtatakda ng pagbabago sa kasaysayan. Walang development, kung walang conflict. Ang lahat ng kasaysayan ay kasaysayan ng mga tunggalian ng uri. Sa Pilipinas, ang pinagsanib na uring panlipunan ng mga panginoong maylupa at burgesya komprador ang siyang nagdodomina. Isang porsiyento lamang ng buong populasyon ng bansa ang pinagsanib na bilang ng mga BurKom at PML.
Ang tanging paraan para wakasan ang kahirapan ay ang magkaroon ng tunay na pagbabago sa pampulitika, pang-ekonomiya at pangkulturang sistema ng buong bansa. Mawawakasan lamang ang kahirapan kung matutukoy at lalabanan ang tunay na mga ugat nito: Imperyalismo, Katutubong Pyudalismo at Burukrata Kapitalismo.
Tagged: Blog Action Day 2008 Philippines October 15, 2008
Continue Reading November 15, 2006
Continue Reading September 6, 2006
Previous Posts
